A Discussion with Frederick Wiseman, Part I

Frederick Wiseman was in New York recently to talk about the PBS debut ofhis latest film, "Public Housing" (and to participate in Film Forum's 60'sVerite Series). Possibly more than any other living filmmaker, he has, overthe course of his career, assembled a body of work that could represent theUSA in a time capsule. Future citizens curious about what everyday life waslike in the U.S. in the late 20th century could look to Wiseman's world,rather than the worlds of Eisner, Murdoch, Turner and Spielberg -- in order toget a true reading of our people, places, and times.

Wiseman's observational style of filmmaking has taken viewers over theyears into the institutions that define life in our country -- schools,hospitals, police forces, welfare offices, racetracks, the military, theballet, and finally, public housing. "Public Housing" is one of the mostcompelling films to come out this year, in either the documentary of thefiction feature category. In it, Wiseman enters the world of the Ida B.Wells Housing Development on the South Side of Chicago.

Though I work in mostly fiction filmmaking, the work most inspiring to mehas always been in documentary. And in this realm, Wiseman rules. So whenindieWIRE asked me if I wanted to sit down and talk with him, I jumped atthe chance; we met at Provence on MacDougal Street. The following areexcerpts from the discussion.

McKay: It seems like "Titticut Follies" is in a way your most known orwritten about work maybe because the films that followed it are thought ofmore as a body of work and "Follies" just had so much controversy surroundingit.

Wiseman: I think that "Follies" got well known because it was banned, theState of Massachusetts made the classic mistake.

McKay: Publicizing...

Wiseman: I would have preferred that they hadn't banned the film, but theydid. I mean, it was stupid of them.

McKay: How would you describe your relationship to the film today? Since ithas been so written about and recalled and you've gone on to make 29 otherfilms?

Wiseman: Well, I mean I don't know what my relationship is -- I mean it wasa first film, so when I look at it I see mistakes.

McKay: Do you feel that your style and technique developed out of thatfilm? How much did you have going into it?

Wiseman: Well I don't know, since it was a first film. I had seen a coupleof other films using that technique and it was one that I wanted to workwith; so when I was doing the "Follies" the idea occurred to me that what Iwas doing in a prison for criminally insane could be done in a lot of otherinstitutions. The idea of this so called "institutional series" had itsorigin there and then. I like to think I've learned something over theyears, but the basic technique is still the same -- handheld camera,handheld tape recorder, shoot a lot of film and figure it out in theediting room.

McKay: Do you remember what the films where that you had seen that hadutilized this observational technique?

Wiseman: Well, the one in particular, "Mooney Vs. Fowle", it is sometimescalled "Football". It's a film that I always liked. I started later than someof the others...a few years later than some of the other filmmakers whoare in the Film Forum series. But I was interested in the possibilities ofthe technical developments, handheld camera, sync sound and it becameapparent to me, as for a lot of other people, that you could now make amovie about any subject. You know, in a very simple fashion. 30 yearslater, America is still relatively unexplored from a film point of view.There are so many great subjects.

McKay: You say technical developments in terms of...?

Wiseman: Well, sync sound, and hand held cameras. I mean you had the handheld cameras before but since approximately 1958 you could shoot sync soundwith hand held cameras and hand held tape recorders and that was anextraordinary development because it meant that you could film anythingwith available light.

McKay: Talk about this idea of shooting as sport...

Wiseman: It is sport in the sense that you have to be in good shape, itsrunning around with heavy equipment. It's not sport in the sense ofstalking, but its sport in the sense of your having to use your physicalresources. You can't make these kind of movies if you're out of shape, Imean you can but it's hard, because you're on your feet 12-14 hours a day,you don't get much sleep if you're looking at rushes at night...and ifyou're too tired you're not using good judgment...

McKay: I thought that was one of the most interesting things in the talk atthe New York Film Festival this year -- when you talked about "knowingwhen not to shoot"-- to me it was very clear and a real good lesson, can youtalk about that?

Wiseman: Well I mean...but that's instinct too. And you're not alwaysright. The worst thing you can do is stop and start because then almostinevitably you will be off at the magic moment. So when I decide to shoot Istick with it, and then get out.

McKay: It occurred to me, I don't remember if it was "Showman" the otherday.. but I also went to see "Ali the Fighter", and it occurred to me howconstructed the scenes were, how cuts in time were made and then I realizedthat in lots of your work, a scene really is a shot that's brokenbasically by cutaways.

Wiseman: Well then it's more than one shot.

McKay: Yeah, but what I mean is... it's very real time.

Wiseman: It is meant to appear as if its real time. I mean, sometimes it isreal time, but more often than not its cut to appear as real time, eventhough it may be a compression from an hour and a half to five minutes...

McKay: I want to go back to "Titticut Follies" and ask if the film in the endaffected a change in the system and was it the affect that you maybeexpected?

Wiseman: Well, you're raising the whole issue of film and social change. Ithink over time the film may have had some impact in changing the system,but it's very very hard to isolate any one film or any one event ordocument of any sort, whether its "Titticut Follies" or anything else, andsay, that's what caused the change. I think the film contributed to aclimate which led to the change, the MASS Bar Association got interested inBridgewater, the MASS Medical Association and some of the newspapers. Ithink it would be presumptuous of me to say that was as a result of thefilm... I think the film may have played a part in it, but I think it'sextraordinary difficult, whether it's with the "Follies" or anything else tomeasure the effect of any one thing. I mean you hope it has an effect butin a sense it's probably better over a long period that the effect is notmeasurable and that you recognize that its circumstances are oblique andsubterranean.

McKay: When you set out to make it, was that part of your motivation?

Wiseman: Yes, it was but in retrospect I think it was naive because I don'tthink that any one work is that important. The fact is that people are notthat stupid, one film is not the only source of their information, theyread newspapers, books, they have their own experiences etc.

McKay: If one wants to find your point of view, one can, if they watchclosely?

Wiseman: That's right. My point of view is expressed indirectly in thestructure. In the same way, in that sense -- that aspect of the editing islike writing. If you read the first paragraph of a novel, you don't knowwhat the writer's attitude is toward the characters. You've got to see howit unfolds and the whole novel is the expression of the writer's ideasabout the people he creates. Similarly, in one of these movies... If Icould summarize it in twenty five words or less, I shouldn't make themovie.

McKay: What comes to my mind is the final scene in "Public Housing" where theHUD official is speaking to the students. I think many viewers want to knowis this a positive ending, is this an ending with hope, and you have manychoices in terms of showing student's reactions, in how you shot it...

Wiseman: Yeah, that's a perfect example of the technique. It's a verycomplex scene and it's up to the viewer to make up their mind.

McKay: Which many people I think, are very scared of.

Wiseman: Yes. That's one of the things in documentary film that I amreacting against -- the need or the supposed need for didacticism, thesupposed need for explanation. I don't like to read novels where thenovelist tells me what to think about the situation and the characters. Iprefer to discover for myself.

McKay: How about fictional film making. I read that you were hoping to makea film in France? A feature?

Wiseman: I directed a play seven or eight years ago by Vasily Grossman.He's a contemporary Russian novelist who died in the sixties. One of hisnovels is called "Life and Fate", and there's one chapter in the novel called"The Last Letter" -- a letter a Russian Jewish woman doctor writes to her sona couple of nights before she knows he will be taken out and shot by theGermans. I did it in the theater as a monologue and I want to do it as amovie monologue.

A couple of years ago there was a possibility of doing it in France, butthat didn't work out, so I am hoping to do it here sometime.

McKay: And would that be just completely...

Wiseman: It would be a staged movie, but it would only be one actress, oneperson -- which is a hard thing to do, which is one of the things that Iwant to try.

McKay: Would there be footage illustrating what she said?

Wiseman: No. It would all be recreated by imagination. Not by herimagination, by your imagination based on her performance.

McKay: I've always felt that fiction feature filmmakers can learn a lotfrom documentary in terms of character. I was thinking that...I imagineyou'd be a really great director of actors given all the experience youhave with character as opposed to exposition of story, which is where Ithink a lot of people get...

Wiseman: Well, if you would write Michael Eisner a letter on my behalf...

(laughter)

McKay: I don't really think its gonna do much good...OK , so you'vedirected some theater. What is it like making the leap?

Wiseman: Well, I enjoy the directing. It's totally different because in mykind of documentary movie you make the movie in the editing. You can havegood material and ruin it in the editing and you can improve mediocrematerial by editing. In theater, that's one of the things I liked about it,you have to work on the script, you work on everything in advance. Boththeater and fiction filmmaking are the reverse of what I do. In fictionfilm you have a script and you shoot the script. That doesn't mean youcan't change it or improvise it, but basically you shoot the script. Youdeal with the character, themes, and the structural problems in thewriting. It's the reverse of documentaries. I had a couple chances and Iwrote a script based on one of the Anne Tyler novels, "Celestial Navigation",which I thought would make a great movie but I couldn't ever get the moneyfor it.

McKay: I'll call someone about that as well.

[Part two of Jim McKay's discussion with Frederick Wiseman concludestomorrow in indieWIRE.

Jim McKay is a filmmaker whose movie, "Girls Town", was an award winner at the1996 Sundance Film Festival. McKay also directed R.E.M.'s concertdocumentary, TOUR FILM, and numerous music videos.]